Title:
State: RAISED OPEN PENDING POSTPONED SUBSUMED CLOSED
Product: All RDFa Recipes SKOS VM
Raised By: Everyone Abhishek Rungta Alistair Miles Antoine Isaac Ben Adida Bernard Horan Clay Redding Dan Brickley Daniel Maycock Daniel Rubin David Peterson Diego Berrueta Ed Summers Elisa Kendall Fabien Gandon Francesco de Leo Guus Schreiber Jan Henke Jeremy Carroll Jon Phipps Justin Thorp Justin Thorp Manu Sporny Margherita Sini Michael Hausenblas Mirghani Mohamed Quentin Reul Rachel Yager Ralph Swick Sean Bechhofer Siegfried Handschuh Simone Onofri Thomas Baker Vit Novacek
Description: Raised by Lourens van der Meij in [1]: """ A comment on "S9 skos:ConceptScheme is disjoint with skos:Concept " I have considered modelling complex thesauri containing sub thesauri describing different aspects of objects (persons,subjects,..) as a general concept scheme having sub thesauri as top concepts. (often the pre-skos version is organized as a tree with top level children nodes that are the aspects themselves). ct:complex_thesaurus rdf:type skos:ConceptScheme ct:complex_thesaurus skos:hasTopConcept ct:subjects ct:complex_thesaurus skos:hasTopConcept ct:persons ct:complex_thesaurus skos:hasTopConcept ... then, ct:subjects rdf:type skos:Concept, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ but I would also like ct:subjects" rdf:type skos:ConceptScheme I would put all ct:complex_thesaurus concepts skos:inScheme ct:complex_thesaurus ct:subject1 rdf:type skos:Concept ct:subject1 skos:broader ct:subjects ct:subject1 skos:inScheme ct:subjects ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ct:subject1 skos:inScheme ct:complex_thesaurus Then, ct:complex_thesaurus would be a proper conceptscheme with tree but its subtree ct:subjects would also be a proper conceptscheme. Why? Because I would dislike having to define two distinct URIs for the subject that is a topconcept of ct:complex_thesaurus and the subject that is a Conceptscheme that defines all subjects concepts that are descendants of the ct:subjects concept. I would then need to define some ad hoc property linking both subject uris. """ Requires discussion. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Sep/0014.html
Add notes: